Last weekend the President sat down with CBS’ 60 Minutes and interviewer Steve Kroft for an in depth conversation that covered many different topics. However, the most interesting moment of the conversation, and the one which will likely end up having the deepest impact, was Obama’s comments on the Clinton email scandal. When Kroft wondered if Clinton’s private and unsecure server posed a national security risk (something the FBI is currently investigating), Obama inserted his foot into his mouth and said something very stupid.
I don’t think it posed a national security problem. I think that it was a mistake that she has acknowledged and– you know, as a general proposition, when we’re in these offices, we have to be more sensitive and stay as far away from the line as possible when it comes to how we handle information, how we handle our own personal data. And, you know, she made a mistake…
What I think is that it is important for her to answer these questions to the satisfaction of the American public. And they can make their own judgment. I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.
The President’s comments on the scandal surprised everyone, because the investigation is ongoing and Obama’s involvement could be construed as corrupting the case. In fact, the sin was so egregious that just a day or two later White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was forced to backtrack on the President’s comments making his boss seem like an idiot (which he is).
I think what I’m saying is that what the President — based on what the President knows now, and that’s what all of us know now, the President wasn’t speaking based on any information that has not yet been made public. But based on what has been made public and based on the public pronouncements of Secretary Clinton herself, that’s how the President arrived at the conclusion that this has not and does not pose a threat to national security. But obviously the FBI will take their own independent look at this.
I’m glad that’s how we handle all of our criminal investigations. “What did the accused person say about what they did? Oh, she said that she was innocent… then I’m sure she is. Oh, she said that nothing bad happened… well I’m sure that’s true. Case Closed!”
Needless to say, the FBI is very unhappy with the White House and openly fuming in the papers about President Obama’s ham-fisted insinuation into their case.
Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Ms. Clinton’s email setup had, in fact, put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.
Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing…
Ron Hosko, a former senior F.B.I. official who retired in 2014 and is now the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, said it was inappropriate for the president to “suggest what side of the investigation he is on” when the F.B.I. is still investigating.
“Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case,” said Mr. Hosko, who maintains close contact with current agents.
Fox News has uncovered the substance of the FBI investigation as well. Apparently, the FBI has zeroed in on the “gross negligence” clause of the Espionage Act in their investigation in Clinton’s emails.
The subsection requires the “lawful possession” of national defense information by a security clearance holder who “through gross negligence,” such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.
Subsection F also requires the clearance holder “to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. “A failure to do so “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. “If someone knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still remain under a single case,” the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the Washington Field Office of the FBI.
If Fox’s reports are accurate, then Hillary Clinton could be in a world of trouble because much of what has come out during this investigation already would seemingly support the idea that she has indeed been “negligent” according to this clause of the Espionage Act.
Personally, I’ve always believed Hillary Clinton was “gross” and “negligent,” I just never though she might finally get taken down because of it. Congratulations Hillary, no one deserves to be investigated by the FBI more than you. Here’s hoping that years of corruption, immorality and lawlessness finally catches up with the Clinton family.